Obama has Failed at Everything

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It is funny no one mentioned we have the best congress ever , eye roll . Congress gets all the credit for a productive Clinton Admin but no blame in the Bam Admin . I contend Congress approval %14 and Bam 41% is a fairer portrayal [/quote]
This congress is impotent. [/quote]

Attitude is a reflection of leadership.

Congress being “obstructionist” or not, it is a leader’s job to work with what she/he has and bring out the best in people.

Bam is just as partisan, just as much of a hack, as anyone else anyone can blame in congress, and that is why were have the congress we have. People like to forget he had total control for the first two years he was in office, and then AHA gave the house to the Republicans…

And it isn’t like Reid and the Democrats are trying to place nice with the Republicans, so… Let’s not pretend it isn’t a purple problem.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Attitude is a reflection of leadership.

Congress being “obstructionist” or not, it is a leader’s job to work with what she/he has and bring out the best in people.

Bam is just as partisan, just as much of a hack, as anyone else anyone can blame in congress, and that is why were have the congress we have. People like to forget he had total control for the first two years he was in office, and then AHA gave the house to the Republicans…

And it isn’t like Reid and the Democrats are trying to place nice with the Republicans, so… Let’s not pretend it isn’t a purple problem. [/quote]

I agree with this. Although I’ve said it before, I think it’s the role of Congress to be in gridlock. If we let them run with every crazy thing that they wanted this place would be in considerably worse shape than it is. I don’t want them passing everything the Pres wants regardless of party. And I don’t want them even passing every bill that they want. I would much prefer gridlock.

james

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
To be fair, he hasn’t failed at everything. He’s been a success in the “Transgender Rights” arena.

He’s also been referred to as “The First Gay President”.

Is that a compliment? Serious question. [/quote]

Even if true, woopteedoo. That’s like being the world’s best kazoo player. It may be a success, but it’s irrelevant at best.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
To be fair, he hasn’t failed at everything. He’s been a success in the “Transgender Rights” arena.

He’s also been referred to as “The First Gay President”.

Is that a compliment? Serious question. [/quote]

Even if true, woopteedoo. That’s like being the world’s best kazoo player. It may be a success, but it’s irrelevant at best.[/quote]

Certainly pales in comparison with being the biggest Deadhead on T-Nation.

:wink:

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Attitude is a reflection of leadership.

Congress being “obstructionist” or not, it is a leader’s job to work with what she/he has and bring out the best in people.

Bam is just as partisan, just as much of a hack, as anyone else anyone can blame in congress, and that is why were have the congress we have. People like to forget he had total control for the first two years he was in office, and then AHA gave the house to the Republicans…

And it isn’t like Reid and the Democrats are trying to place nice with the Republicans, so… Let’s not pretend it isn’t a purple problem. [/quote]

I agree with this. Although I’ve said it before, I think it’s the role of Congress to be in gridlock. If we let them run with every crazy thing that they wanted this place would be in considerably worse shape than it is. I don’t want them passing everything the Pres wants regardless of party. And I don’t want them even passing every bill that they want. I would much prefer gridlock.

james
[/quote]

I agree. If you see gridlock, even if it’s frustrating it means the system is working. Legislation is not supposed to be easy to pass. Checks and balances are in place so that one individual in power cannot run roughshod over everybody and do what they want.
And this impotent congress has spared us a lot of misery. They kept obama from failing more. He should be thankful.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The failure in Syria has come back to bite him in a big way.[/quote]

Are you referring to this “red line” we’ve heard so much about? Or is this about ISIS? If the former, I hear that the Finns are unloading some cargo of interesting origin in Hamina as I write this.[/quote]

The ‘red line’ was one of many failures in Syria. Ignoring it in the first place was the biggest failure. We’re only seeing the very first implications of letting that situation go to hell.

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
And remember, Obama would have outlawed all the interrogation methods that led to valuable intelligence to locate Bin Laden.

He does deserve credit for saying “Go”.[/quote]

Did he or didn’t he? Can you prove that torture directly led to the culmination of Operation Neptune Spear?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The failure in Syria has come back to bite him in a big way.[/quote]

Are you referring to this “red line” we’ve heard so much about? Or is this about ISIS? If the former, I hear that the Finns are unloading some cargo of interesting origin in Hamina as I write this.[/quote]

The ‘red line’ was one of many failures in Syria. Ignoring it in the first place was the biggest failure. We’re only seeing the very first implications of letting that situation go to hell. [/quote]

The use of chemical weapons is not a sufficient nor prudent reason for initiating a war. Weapons of mass destruction is a normative term that cannot separate the emotional response their nature invokes from the rational assessment of the threat that they pose. As such, so called WMD are more accurately described as Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear weapons (CBRNS). Given the expense of their manufacture, and their status as an area weapon heavily dependent on many natural phenomenon for their successful deployment, chemical weapons are relatively ineffective tools on the battlefield.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
To be fair, he hasn’t failed at everything. He’s been a success in the “Transgender Rights” arena.

He’s also been referred to as “The First Gay President”.

Is that a compliment? Serious question. [/quote]

Even if true, woopteedoo. That’s like being the world’s best kazoo player. It may be a success, but it’s irrelevant at best.[/quote]

Certainly pales in comparison with being the biggest Deadhead on T-Nation.

;)[/quote]

Somebody’s got to represent.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

International security in the 21st century is and will continue to become more and more precarious. Statesmen cannot hope to control such phenomena as widening global disparity, clashes of civilization, technological innovations, globalization, climate change, ect.
[/quote]

No, International security in the 21st century is and will continue to become more and more precarious. Statesmen have to try to control such phenomena as widening global disparity, clashes of civilization, technological innovations, globalization, climate change, ect.
[/quote]

Yes, which despite the formidable power and influence they may respectively wield, is hopelessly impossible for individual states. It will require a paradigm shift toward international diplomacy and dialogue

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
To be fair, he hasn’t failed at everything. He’s been a success in the “Transgender Rights” arena.

[/quote]

But there’s still so much more to be done. Transspecies other kin and diaper fetishists are still suffering from prejudice and discrimination.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The failure in Syria has come back to bite him in a big way.[/quote]

Are you referring to this “red line” we’ve heard so much about? Or is this about ISIS? If the former, I hear that the Finns are unloading some cargo of interesting origin in Hamina as I write this.[/quote]

The ‘red line’ was one of many failures in Syria. Ignoring it in the first place was the biggest failure. We’re only seeing the very first implications of letting that situation go to hell. [/quote]

Syria’s chemical weapons are no longer chemical weapons, and they are no longer Syria’s. They are in Finland and Germany, being turned into salt as I type these words. Because it looked like we were going to follow through on our threat. Threaten force–> Get what you want. That’s failure? You know what they say about power: You don’t have power until you don’t have to use it anymore.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The failure in Syria has come back to bite him in a big way.[/quote]

Are you referring to this “red line” we’ve heard so much about? Or is this about ISIS? If the former, I hear that the Finns are unloading some cargo of interesting origin in Hamina as I write this.[/quote]

The ‘red line’ was one of many failures in Syria. Ignoring it in the first place was the biggest failure. We’re only seeing the very first implications of letting that situation go to hell. [/quote]

The use of chemical weapons is not a sufficient nor prudent reason for initiating a war. [/quote]

Obama said it was…then backed down because of Russian pressure. If they are not a good reason to start a war, why did Obama feel he had to threaten Syria? Was it because Assad’s father used chemical weapons to subdue a rebellion in the early 80’s? If it is not a sufficient nor prudent reason for starting a war, why was the rumor that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction the reason we invaded Iraq in the first place?

History has proven your statement incorrect.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The failure in Syria has come back to bite him in a big way.[/quote]

Are you referring to this “red line” we’ve heard so much about? Or is this about ISIS? If the former, I hear that the Finns are unloading some cargo of interesting origin in Hamina as I write this.[/quote]

The ‘red line’ was one of many failures in Syria. Ignoring it in the first place was the biggest failure. We’re only seeing the very first implications of letting that situation go to hell. [/quote]

The use of chemical weapons is not a sufficient nor prudent reason for initiating a war. Weapons of mass destruction is a normative term that cannot separate the emotional response their nature invokes from the rational assessment of the threat that they pose. As such, so called WMD are more accurately described as Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear weapons (CBRNS). [/quote]

you, of course mean CBRNPCs.

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear or Pressure Cookers.

Well, he did grow up to be President, didn’t he?

EDIT No thanks to me, by the way.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The failure in Syria has come back to bite him in a big way.[/quote]

Are you referring to this “red line” we’ve heard so much about? Or is this about ISIS? If the former, I hear that the Finns are unloading some cargo of interesting origin in Hamina as I write this.[/quote]

The ‘red line’ was one of many failures in Syria. Ignoring it in the first place was the biggest failure. We’re only seeing the very first implications of letting that situation go to hell. [/quote]

Syria’s chemical weapons are no longer chemical weapons, and they are no longer Syria’s. They are in Finland and Germany, being turned into salt as I type these words. Because it looked like we were going to follow through on our threat. Threaten force–> Get what you want. That’s failure? You know what they say about power: You don’t have power until you don’t have to use it anymore.[/quote]

Well considering the ‘red line’ existed to prevent the use of chemical weapons and the Assad regime did in fact use said chemical weapons the ‘red line’ was a failure.
And we have no way to verify whether or not the gave up all their chemical weapons or not. Maybe they used all they had. Initially they said they didn’t have any, so I don’t exactly trust them when they say they gave them all to Russia.
That’s not the only failure.
We have the ‘no-fly’ zone failure. We have the failure to back the moderate opposition until the moderates were over run by radicals, so there are no longer any ‘good guys’ in Syria to back.
Our hands off policy paid off. It gave Al Qaeda and its counter parts a safe place to retool, regroup and become stronger, which gave rise to ISIS. When then took over parts of Syria and Iraq, which put us in a crisis in Iraq which puts us on the brink of war.
I am not sure how you can spin that into success but I am sure you’ll find something.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The failure in Syria has come back to bite him in a big way.[/quote]

Are you referring to this “red line” we’ve heard so much about? Or is this about ISIS? If the former, I hear that the Finns are unloading some cargo of interesting origin in Hamina as I write this.[/quote]

The ‘red line’ was one of many failures in Syria. Ignoring it in the first place was the biggest failure. We’re only seeing the very first implications of letting that situation go to hell. [/quote]

The use of chemical weapons is not a sufficient nor prudent reason for initiating a war. [/quote]

Obama said it was…then backed down because of Russian pressure. If they are not a good reason to start a war, why did Obama feel he had to threaten Syria? Was it because Assad’s father used chemical weapons to subdue a rebellion in the early 80’s? If it is not a sufficient nor prudent reason for starting a war, why was the rumor that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction the reason we invaded Iraq in the first place?

History has proven your statement incorrect.[/quote]

Idle threats are dangerously stupid things to do. If you don’t mean it, don’t threaten it. If you don’t back up what you say, nobody will take you seriously, and nobody does. We see how quick Russia was to back away from their ambitions in the Ukraine. Obama wagged his finger, Putin laughed and moved right in.

[quote]pat wrote:

Idle threats are dangerously stupid things to do. If you don’t mean it, don’t threaten it. If you don’t back up what you say, nobody will take you seriously, and nobody does.
[/quote]

Like I said, Syria’s chemical weapons are being turned into sand in Finland right now…because Assad capitulated…because the U.S. (in concert with the French) moved to make good on its threat. If the chemical weapons had not been surrendered, and we had done nothing, then your point would be correct. But that isn’t what happened. We dispossessed a tyrant of his most dangerous weapons simply by signaling that we were going to dole out punishment. This is power.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It is funny no one mentioned we have the best congress ever , eye roll . Congress gets all the credit for a productive Clinton Admin but no blame in the Bam Admin . I contend Congress approval %14 and Bam 41% is a fairer portrayal [/quote]
This congress is impotent. [/quote]

a black man in the white house
[/quote]

He is just as much not black as black…why do you continue to call him black?

He successfully increased food stamp enrollment. Does that count?